When Can Fraud Operations Authorize Automation? A Decision-Support Framework for Fresh Audit Evidence and Review Workload

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.08577v1
• Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2026 08:41:08 GMT
• Title: When Can Fraud Operations Authorize Automation? A Decision-Support Framework for Fresh Audit Evidence and Review Workload
• Abstract summary: Fraud operations must allocate events among automatic approval, analyst review, and automatic blocking.<n>We develop freshness-constrained audit capacity that treats automation as an authorization decision constrained by action risk, evidence freshness, and shared review capacity.
• Score: 2.5273986395975476
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Fraud operations must allocate events among automatic approval, analyst review, and automatic blocking even though the labels needed to evaluate these actions are selective and delayed. Predictive scores order cases, but they do not show whether the evidence is current and representative enough to delegate an action to the model. We develop freshness-constrained audit capacity (FCAC), a decision-support framework that treats automation as an authorization decision constrained by action risk, evidence freshness, and shared review capacity. It evaluates candidate action regions from mature randomized audits and a prespecified temporal allowance. Supported regions are automated; unsupported regions remain in review. The resulting decision record reports evidence age, audit demand, total review workload, value exposure, and compatible temporal change. We show that current action risk is unidentified without restricting unobserved label evolution. Under representative randomized audits, label-independent evidence windows, and a prespecified condition linking historical and current action risk, we derive simultaneous finite-sample control of unsafe authorization. Chronological evaluations with simulated audits on IEEE-CIS, ULB-Worldline, and Elliptic++ yield zero-drift automation rates of 84.4%, 67.4%, and 81.3%, with total review workloads of 24.1%, 46.0%, and 43.1%. The experiments reveal an audit-capacity trade-off: sparse auditing delays authorization, whereas intensive auditing eventually increases workload. A separately specified BAF stress test further indicates that fallback thresholds must reflect candidate-specific evidence rather than a common fraction of the risk limit. These findings identify audit freshness and analyst capacity as joint design considerations for fraud decision support.

Related papers

• VERA-8B: Evidence-Grounded Audit Risk Reasoning from SEC Filings [0.6445605125467574]
  We develop VERA-8B, a new end-to-end audit reasoning system.<n> VERA-8B identifies audit risks before enforcement actions occur.<n>We are the first to unify SFT and GRPO for evidence-grounded audit reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-28T14:55:49Z)
• From Trajectories to Evidence: Auditable Experimental Records for Industrial Research Agents [47.678562263387214]
  Research agents increasingly conduct multi-round machine-learning experiments in industrial recommendation settings.<n>Yet a completed trajectory is not automatically evidence: generated artifacts may be unsupported or incomplete, executed rounds may be invalid or confounded, and later modifications may obscure earlier findings.<n>We introduce an evidence-grounded framework that couples bounded verification of consequential artifacts with post-execution claim qualification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T13:37:38Z)
• Audited Selective Verification for Risk-Controlled N-1 Thermal Contingency Screening under Deployment Shift [0.0]
  Audited Selective Verification is a risk-budgeted screening and triage layer for any controller's output.<n> Validity rests on real verification and the audit rather than on surrogate accuracy, so it holds under arbitrary deployment shift.<n>On three public transmission systems up to 1354 buses, the realized violation rate stays within budget, standard deterministic and calibrated screens become unsafe under shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-14T19:29:59Z)
• Sequential Fairness Auditing with Limited Output Access [6.933020649563105]
  External evaluations are becoming increasingly central to the governance of AI systems.<n>In practice, independent auditors often have limited access to deployed models and must rely on query-based interactions.<n>Most existing fairness evaluation methods assume static datasets and fixed-sample statistical tests.<n>We formulate fairness auditing as a tolerance-aware sequential hypothesis-testing problem under limited model output access.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T14:17:33Z)
• Auditable Decision Models with Learned Abstention and Real-Time Steering [6.287457666346811]
  Production AI systems often operate with incomplete, conflicting, or insufficient evidence.<n>We study operational decision control for AI systems, where uncertainty must be explicitly routable.<n>We present EvaluatorDPT, a bounded decision-control model that predicts YES, NO, or TBD.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T23:37:56Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• Adaptive auditing of AI systems with anytime-valid guarantees [8.752768302067638]
  We introduce a hypothesis testing framework from two 'dueling' perspectives.<n>We formalize the auditor as conducting 'testing by betting', which translates into simultaneous e-processes for testing the dueling null hypotheses.<n>Our proposed testing procedures maintain anytime-valid type-I error control, outperform pre-specified testing methods, and can reach statistically rigorous conclusions sometimes with as few as 20 observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T22:33:48Z)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)
• Towards Real-Time Fake News Detection under Evidence Scarcity [66.58597356379907]
  We propose Evaluation-Aware Selection of Experts (EASE), a novel framework for real-time fake news detection.<n>EASE adapts its decision-making process according to the assessed sufficiency of available evidence.<n>We introduce RealTimeNews-25, a new benchmark for evaluating model generalization on emerging news with limited evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T11:11:46Z)
• The Decisive Power of Indecision: Low-Variance Risk-Limiting Audits and Election Contestation via Marginal Mark Recording [51.82772358241505]
  Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) are techniques for verifying the outcomes of large elections. We define new families of audits that improve efficiency and offer advances in statistical power. New audits are enabled by revisiting the standard notion of a cast-vote record so that it can declare multiple possible mark interpretations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T16:23:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.